Like any company, The North Face is entitled to determine which businesses it deals and associates with. However given that The North Face’s business relies on oil – at many points from materials to manufacturing to distribution – it is somewhat hypocritical!

Unless The North Face can prove that its entire supply chain is carbon neutral and doesn’t rely on fossil fuels, this is little more than a publicity stunt. But since we’re talking about it, the stunt is working.

I have mixed feeling about this. Yes, it’s important to uphold your core brand beliefs but this feels discriminatory. The article states that The North Face jackets are made from petroleum products, and surely the people who work for The North Face drive cars and purchase other oil industry related products.

I also wonder about the comment that The North Face “thoroughly investigate product requests to ensure they align closely with our goals and commitments surrounding sustainability and environmental protection.” Does the company investigate every order that comes across its website? I can understand vetting outlets that sell The North Face garments, but vetting consumers seems a bit much.

“We reserve the right to refuse service.” End of story.

Wow. This is absolutely astonishing. Given that every product The North Face sells can trace its supply chain back oil I personally find this hugely hypocritical.

Not all consumers may realize that this is the case and those that do not may think this is a good move from The North Face and in their eyes increase their perception of the brand image. It feels to me like there are many cases like this where someone “makes a stand” but if you were to scratch below the surface, finding evidence of hypocrisy — whether they realize it or not — is very easy to do.

Sadly this dilutes the conversation that is happening in business right now about sustainability. It is an important conversation that isn’t helped by a publicity stunt. A blanket ban on all oil producers, when your company is reliant on fossil fuels, is absolutely “green washing.”

The strategy of addressing climate change and making decisions supporting that strategy seems a wise one, especially in these days when Millennials and Gen Z feel so strongly about the issue. In addition to positioning, climate change is real, and we need more companies making such a commitment.

At the same time, refusing an order based on the industry seems a little bit “one size fits all.” I do not know what Innnovex is doing in terms of greenhouse gas management, but such considerations should be taken into account in a well-balanced decision process.

This move by The North face is a drop in an ocean of challenges facing the world as we combat climate change. While I applaud the intent and the message, I suspect the blowback criticisms of “greenwashing” and “hypocrisy” will endure far longer than the message intended by the action itself.

Maybe after I get my jaw off the floor I can make a comment.

I can see both sides of this one. While they might be reliant upon fossil fuels to run their business, they aspire to become fully sustainable and this is an effort to take a stance, it has to start somewhere. While it would been easy enough for The North Face to fulfill the Innovex order, Mr. Anderson can just as easily order from another brand and move on.

I don’t necessarily agree with the decision but must respect it, these are complex issues too difficult to resolve by trading headlines. But there is no debate when no one takes a stand, even if we don’t agree.

Hypocritical is the word – if you don’t want to be associated with that industry (and I believe that’s your prerogative), don’t make your jackets from petroleum products – make them from something sustainable.

It will be interesting to see the sales effects as these hollow gestures often have blowback. Goya said their sales increased 1,000 percent after AOC called them out for their President supporting “the wrong candidate.” The president of Goya intends (maybe jokingly) to make AOC employee of the month! Seriously, I think consumers can get sick of being lectured to by celebrities (whose job is diversion) and companies (whose job it is to makes stuff that serves a specific purpose).

Wow! If the jackets rely upon petroleum, the decision to refuse an order intended for an oil and gas company seems problematic. If the reason had not been given and the letter stood on its own the contradiction would not have been obvious. Does that make it better? Probably not, but it would make the story less newsworthy.

Of course anyone can refuse an order as long as that refusal is not based on discriminatory practices banned under federal law BUT The North Face is guilty of trying to have its organic cake and share it with the poor too. While I’m no fan of the fossil fuel industry, Anderson does have a point.

Yes. They are being hypocritical. How much of their product is made from oil and gas? Uhm, a lot.

We should remember that the leader who established The North Face’s commitment is also no longer with the company — so it’s no surprise this program has become bureaucratic rather than enlightened.

The polyester fabric used in outerwear jackets is a synthetic fabric created from petroleum. The nylon fabric used in windbreakers is created by the carbon-based chemicals found in coal and petroleum. A quick search this morning of TheNorthFace.com website found both petroleum-based fabrications listed under The North Face product “details.” It is counterproductive and mean-spirited to punish the 9.8 million people who earn their livelihood in the U.S. oil and gas industry. The very same oil and gas workers whose output enables manufacturers like The North Face to design and build products, earning annual revenue of $2 billion dollars a year. The North Face has knowingly capitalized upon the oil and gas industry to build their company. Yet oil and gas workers are NOT allowed to be given a The North Face jacket for Christmas by their company? Instead, these workers are marginalized under the guise of hypocritic righteousness. Or? Upon further investigation, many of The North Face products are “imported.” Meaning as Mr. Anderson told CBS7 in Odessa, TX “They told us we did… Read more »

It’s one thing to drive a narrative around environmental consciousness and sustainability and another thing to actually execute against those commitments. Most retailers and other operators have set realistic expectations on carbon neutrality as a long-term initiative that extends well into 2030 and beyond.

Until retail operations no longer depend on a fossil fuel-powered supply chain, companies as The North Face and others should be open and transparent on their plans.

Too often the mission, vision, and values of the PR department are far different than what’s actually happening inside a company. The North Face can of course refuse business with anyone. Far more powerful though to go to work on actually embodying that mission to “support the preservation of the outdoors” throughout the company.

I applaud any corporation that steers in the direction of sustainability. However, handpicking its customers bases on its relationship to fossil fuel production goes too far.

If The North Face wished to promote its branding efforts on being environmentally friendly, perhaps they should focus on developing their own products. By calling out Innovex, I feel that The North Face is blaming others for climate change instead of focusing on their own back yard.

To me, this is merely a publicity stunt on behalf of The North Face and a bad public relations call to boot. After all, many of these fossil fuel-related companies are still needed today until we can reach full sustainability with alternative clean power.

Innovex provides technology for the oil and gas industry. Keeping them safe and warm should be The North Faces’ number one priority. Who’s next, General Motors?